What Is Relativism?

What Is Relativism?

Relativism is the view that something we take to be absolute — truth, knowledge, morality, rationality — is in fact relative. Relative to what? That depends on the version. Cultural relativism says truth and morality are relative to culture. Conceptual relativism says truth is relative to a conceptual scheme. Perspectival relativism says truth is relative to a standpoint. But the core idea is the same: there is no perspective-independent standard by which beliefs, values, or practices can be evaluated. What is true or right for one group may not be true or right for another.

This is a radical claim. It challenges the assumption — central to most philosophy, science, and ethics — that there are facts about how things are and how people should act, independent of what anyone believes. If relativism is right, then the question "but is it really true?" has no answer beyond "true for whom?" The world does not dictate a single correct description; different descriptions are valid for different frameworks.

Relativism is appealing because it seems to respect diversity and tolerate difference. If no framework is objectively better than another, then no culture has the right to impose its standards on others. But relativism is also troubling, because it seems to undermine the possibility of criticism. If truth and morality are relative, then we cannot say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong, that science is objectively better than superstition, or that human rights are universally valid — we can only say these things relative to our own framework.

Historical Background

Ancient Origins

Relativism is as old as philosophy itself. The Greek sophist Protagoras (c. 490–420 BCE) famously declared that "man is the measure of all things — of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not." This is an early statement of relativism: what is true for a person is what seems true to them. There is no standard of truth independent of individual perception.

Plato responded to Protagoras in the Theaetetus, arguing that if each person is the measure of truth, then no one can be wrong — which is absurd. If a person believes that the wind is cold, and the wind is cold for them, then their belief is true. But this means that no belief can be false, which eliminates the distinction between truth and error. Plato's critique remains one of the most powerful arguments against relativism.

The ancient skeptics also contributed to relativist thought. The Pyrrhonists argued that for every argument, there is an equally strong counterargument, and that appearances differ from person to person and culture to culture. They did not conclude that truth is relative (that would be a dogmatic claim) but that we should suspend judgment. This suspension is different from relativism but related: both challenge the possibility of objective knowledge.

Modern Relativism

Modern relativism emerged from several sources. The anthropological encounter with diverse cultures raised the question: if different societies have fundamentally different beliefs and values, which one is right? Montaigne, in the sixteenth century, used reports of New World cultures to challenge European assumptions about what is natural and universal. If the Tupinamba of Brazil find cannibalism acceptable and Europeans find it abhorrent, who is right? Montaigne suggested that the answer is not obvious — that what seems natural to one culture may seem unnatural to another.

In the eighteenth century, Hume's skepticism about reason's power contributed to relativist thought. If reason cannot establish the most fundamental beliefs, then perhaps those beliefs are relative to habit, culture, and custom rather than to objective truth. Hume himself did not draw relativist conclusions — he believed in a common human nature that grounds shared standards — but his arguments opened the door.

Twentieth-Century Relativism

The twentieth century saw relativism become a major philosophical force. Several developments contributed:

Anthropology. Franz Boas and his students (including Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict) argued that cultures are fundamentally different and that each must be understood in its own terms. This cultural relativism was a methodological principle — a directive to understand cultures without imposing the observer's standards — but it was often extended into a philosophical thesis: that no culture's standards are objectively better than another's.

Philosophy of science. Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) argued that scientific theories are embedded in paradigms — frameworks of assumptions, methods, and values that determine what counts as evidence and explanation. Different paradigms are incommensurable: they cannot be directly compared because they use different standards. This suggested that scientific truth is relative to a paradigm, not absolute.

Postmodernism. Thinkers like Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Richard Rorty challenged the idea of objective truth from various angles. Foucault argued that claims to truth are always entangled with power. Derrida argued that meaning is always deferred and unstable. Rorty argued that truth is what our peers let us get away with saying. These positions, though different in detail, converge on the view that there is no perspective-independent truth.

Types of Relativism

Cognitive Relativism

Cognitive relativism is the view that truth and knowledge are relative to a framework. What is true within one conceptual scheme may be false within another, and there is no framework-independent standard by which to adjudicate. Cognitive relativism is the most radical form of relativism, because it challenges the idea that there are facts about the world independent of our descriptions.

Cognitive relativism faces the self-refutation problem: if all truth is relative, then the claim "all truth is relative" is itself only relatively true. It is true for the relativist but not for the objectivist. But if the relativist's claim is only relatively true, then the objectivist is not wrong — they are just operating within a different framework. The relativist cannot claim that the objectivist is mistaken, because that would require a framework-independent standard.

Moral Relativism

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are relative to a culture, society, or individual. What is right in one culture may be wrong in another, and there is no universal moral standard. Moral relativism is the most popular form of relativism, because the diversity of moral practices across cultures is striking and well-documented.

Moral relativism comes in two forms. Descriptive moral relativism is the empirical observation that different cultures have different moral beliefs. This is uncontroversial — cultures do differ. Normative moral relativism is the philosophical claim that because cultures differ, no culture's morality is objectively better than another's. This is much more controversial.

Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism is the view that beliefs, values, and practices must be understood within their cultural context, not judged by the standards of another culture. This began as a methodological principle in anthropology — a directive to understand cultures on their own terms — but has often been extended into a philosophical thesis: that no culture's beliefs or values are objectively superior.

Cultural relativism is valuable as a methodological principle: understanding a culture requires setting aside one's own standards and entering into the culture's own framework. But the extension from methodology to philosophy is questionable. The fact that we should understand a culture on its own terms does not mean we should accept all its practices as equally valid.

Arguments for Relativism

The Argument from Disagreement

The most common argument for relativism is the observation of disagreement. If different cultures disagree about fundamental questions — the nature of reality, the basis of morality, the requirements of justice — then perhaps there is no objective truth to be discovered. If there were, one would expect at least convergence over time, as people accumulate evidence and refine their methods. The persistence of disagreement suggests that the question is not one of objective fact but of perspective.

This argument is not conclusive. Persistent disagreement does not imply the absence of truth. People disagree about scientific questions (climate change, evolution), but this does not mean there is no fact of the matter. Disagreement may reflect bias, ignorance, or self-interest rather than the absence of objective truth.

The Argument from Conceptual Schemes

A more sophisticated argument comes from the observation that different cultures use different conceptual schemes — different ways of categorizing the world, different languages, different fundamental assumptions. If these schemes are incommensurable — if they cannot be directly compared or translated — then there is no framework-independent standard for choosing among them. Each scheme is valid within its own framework.

This argument, associated with Kuhn and Quine, is powerful but contested. Most philosophers believe that some translation and comparison across conceptual schemes is possible, even if it is imperfect. The fact that we can understand and discuss other cultures' beliefs suggests that their conceptual schemes are not wholly incommensurable with ours.

The Argument from Tolerance

A practical argument for relativism is that it promotes tolerance. If no framework is objectively better than another, then we should not impose our standards on others. This argument has appeal, but it is also problematic. If relativism is true, then tolerance is not objectively better than intolerance — it is just our cultural preference. The argument from tolerance undermines itself: if all values are relative, then the value of tolerance is relative too.

Arguments Against Relativism

The Self-Refutation Argument

The most famous argument against relativism is that it is self-refuting. If the relativist claims "all truth is relative," this claim is either objectively true or only relatively true. If it is objectively true, then there is at least one objective truth, and relativism is false. If it is only relatively true, then it does not apply to those who disagree — and the relativist cannot claim that the objectivist is wrong.

This argument is powerful but has been refined. Some relativists argue that their view is not a claim about all truth but a claim about a specific domain (e.g., moral truth, or truth about value). This narrows the scope and avoids the self-refutation problem — but it also weakens the relativist's position, because it accepts objective truth in other domains.

The Argument from Convergence

Another argument against relativism is the observation of convergence in science. Scientific communities, starting from different perspectives and using different methods, have converged on a common body of knowledge — the laws of physics, the principles of biology, the methods of chemistry. This convergence suggests that there is an objective reality that different approaches are tracking, not merely different frameworks producing different truths.

The Argument from Moral Criticism

A practical argument against moral relativism is that it undermines our ability to criticize moral atrocities. If morality is relative to culture, then we cannot say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong — only that it was wrong relative to our culture. Most people find this unacceptable: some moral judgments seem to be more than cultural preferences. The intuition that some things are genuinely wrong — not just wrong for us — pushes against moral relativism.

Contemporary Relevance

Relativism remains a live issue in several areas:

Post-truth politics. The rise of "alternative facts" and the dismissal of expertise as "just one perspective" have brought relativism into public discourse. When political actors claim that their narrative is as valid as any other, they are drawing on relativist ideas — even if they do not use the term. Understanding relativism helps distinguish legitimate challenges to authority from illegitimate dismissals of evidence.

Cross-cultural ethics. Globalization has made cross-cultural moral engagement unavoidable. How should we respond to practices in other cultures that violate our moral standards? Relativism suggests tolerance; objectivism suggests criticism. Most philosophers seek a middle path: understanding cultural context while maintaining the capacity for moral judgment.

Science studies. The sociology of scientific knowledge has shown that scientific communities are influenced by social factors — funding, prestige, institutional incentives. This does not make science relative, but it complicates the picture of science as purely objective. Understanding the social dimensions of science without abandoning the ideal of truth is an ongoing challenge.

How to Apply This

1. Distinguish descriptive from normative relativism. The observation that cultures differ (descriptive) does not imply that no culture is right (normative). Keep these separate.

2. Take disagreement seriously but do not overinterpret it. Persistent disagreement may reflect bias or self-interest, not the absence of truth. Ask why people disagree before concluding that there is no fact of the matter.

3. Understand before judging. The methodological principle of cultural relativism — understanding a culture on its own terms — is valuable. But understanding does not require acceptance.

4. Watch for self-refutation. If a relativist claim applies to itself, it undermines itself. Ask: is this claim supposed to be objectively true? If so, it contradicts itself.

5. Recognize the role of perspective without abandoning truth. Perspective influences what we see and believe, but it does not eliminate the distinction between truth and error. The goal is to be aware of perspective while striving for accuracy.

Sources

1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Relativism." Comprehensive overview of relativism and its varieties.
2. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Moral Relativism." Analysis of moral relativism and its challenges.
3. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Cultural Relativism." Context for the anthropological roots of relativism.
4. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Postmodernism." Context for the postmodern challenge to objectivity.

Related Topics

• What is objectivity? — the ideal that relativism challenges.
• Correspondence vs coherence — theories of truth in the context of the relativism debate.
• What is standpoint epistemology? — a nuanced alternative to both objectivism and relativism.
• Truth vs fact — the distinction between truth and fact in the context of relativism.